Enclosure for metal consumer unit, meter and 100A fuse

[fairplay]

I have previously had this covered by a wooden cupboard with open fronted doors. I have removed it for the connection to be made by Octopus for my EV charger.
Lots of stuff out there saying you can't have a wooden enclosure because of fire risk. (It is in my hall and needs to be covered for aesthetic reasons) . I have researched metal enclosures but there are none large enough.(600x480x150mm). This seems pretty illogocal as the meter is made of plastic as is the incoming 100A fusebox. The consumer unit is in a metal enclosure so it all seems a bit illogical to me. So is this really the case? (Pic attached)

 

[AndyPRK]

Stick with the wood

 

[SUNRAY]

I don't believe there is anything to worry about.

The EV installer may make a bit of a mess though.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

Wood is absolutely fine, there is no requirement for the consumer unit to even be metal, it's just that manufacturers have settled on metal, as an easy way to satisfy none-flammable.

If you can persuade the EV installer, to move that earth terminal over to the right, there might be enough room for him to install his gubbins, just below your consumer unit.

 

[JohnW2]

If you can persuade the EV installer, to move that earth terminal over to the right, there might be enough room for him to install his gubbins, just below your consumer unit.

.... particularly if he/she also removes that unnecessary bit of trunking containing the conductors going to the earth block

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

.... particularly if he/she also removes that unnecessary bit of trunking containing the conductors going to the earth block

Is that in some way different, to what I suggested?

 

[JohnW2]

Is that in some way different, to what I suggested?

No, 'additional'.

However, I suppose the main reason for my comment to implicitly express surprise that someone had bothered to put those G/Y conductors in trunking

 

[AndyPRK]

I guess they don’t have any blue tails

 

[JohnW2]

I guess they don’t have any blue tails

I suppose the inner insulation of one of the brown-sheathed ones could be blue?

However, in the case of my supply, they definitely got it wrong (photo taken before a 'meter changer' subsequently covered up the evidence with grey silicone ), again maybe because it was 'all they had in the van'! ...

 

[plugwash]

I'm not aware of any regulation that would prevent you from simply putting the doors back on your cupboard and I don't think it's at all an unreasonable thing to do.

Afaict the reg om BS7671 requiring "consumer units and similar switchgear" in "domestic premesis" to be "non-combustible" was a reaction to pressure the London Fire brigade placed on the IET after a spate of fires blamed on failures inside plastic CUs, generally where the main switch or RCD connects to the busbars.

The change is IMO a bit of a bodge, it focuses on "combustibility" but that isn't the real problem. The real problem IMO is a combination of poorly designed bus-bar systems, and the inability of themoplastic enclosures to retain their integrity when subjected to hot debris from an electrical fault. This in turn allows the hot debris to fall on whatever is under the electrical equipment, which may be signficantly more flammable.

Almost anything can combust under the right conditions. Usually when standards want fire resistance they cite a fire-resistance standard that comes with a specific set of tests but the authors of the regulation in question just said "non-combustible" and said they considered "ferrous metal" to be non-combustible. Faced with that, the only "safe" option for manufacturers was to use ferrous metal.

The electricty supply industry does not work to BS7671, and even if they did I don't think service cutouts and meters would come under "consumer units and similar switchgear".

 

[JohnW2]

Afaict the reg om BS7671 requiring "consumer units and similar switchgear" in "domestic premesis" to be "non-combustible" was a reaction to pressure the London Fire brigade placed on the IET after a spate of fires blamed on failures inside plastic CUs, generally where the main switch or RCD connects to the busbars.

Quite so.

The change is IMO a bit of a bodge, it focuses on "combustibility" but that isn't the real problem. The real problem IMO is a combination of poorly designed bus-bar systems, and the inability of themoplastic enclosures to retain their integrity when subjected to hot debris from an electrical fault. This in turn allows the hot debris to fall on whatever is under the electrical equipment, which may be signficantly more flammable.

Indeed - but, as I often say, seemingly even sillier than you suggest, because the reg has no requirement in relation to 'fire containment'. The enclosure could be totally covered on front, sides and bottom with 12mm diameter holes, provided only that what little material was left was deemed to be 'non-combustible (whatever that means), yet that would seemingly be compliant with the reg.

Almost anything can combust under the right conditions. Usually when standards want fire resistance they cite a fire-resistance standard that comes with a specific set of tests but the authors of the regulation in question just said "non-combustible" and said they considered "ferrous metal" to be non-combustible. Faced with that, the only "safe" option for manufacturers was to use ferrous metal.

Again, quite so!

I would also add, as I usually do, that I think it's only a matter of time (if it hasn't already happened) before someone dies as a result of a domestic CU being metal. In many senses, plastic CUs were the 'friend' f people who 'fiddled inside CUs' without necessarily knowing enough about what they were doing!

It does nothing for my respect for JPEL/64, and its members, to have seen them allow themselves to be bullied into this half-baked regulation!